I was just thinking about how I heard throughout the 80s that if we did not DO SOMETHING and DO IT NOW the planet would be uninhabitable by Y2K (Ted Danson). That's the kind of hysteria I am referring to.

We live on an amazingly self-regulating planet that is far beyond our control... that's my belief. I am concerned that the Gulf Stream is shutting down due to more fresh water in the N. Atlantic. I don't like the rapid rate of growth in the Sahara. I just cannot come down decisively as to a human cause because there is not enough longitudinal data with evil humans in the mix.

What can you illuminate for me about CO2 versus water vapor as a greenhouse cause?

What they actually said back then was that if we didn't do anything soon and sart curbing our use we would reach a turning point where we couldn't reverse it. The planet would be pretty bad off in the next 50 to 60 years ( not y2k ).

And yes natural things like solar flares can affect the ozone layer as well. That doesn't negate the effect of CFCs.

I still couldn't get your first link to load properly.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

What they actually said back then was that if we didn't do anything soon and sart curbing our use we would reach a turning point where we couldn't reverse it. The planet would be pretty bad off in the next 50 to 60 years ( not y2k ).

And yes natural things like solar flares can affect the ozone layer as well. That doesn't negate the effect of CFCs.

Why, yes #6 of the 30 known AGW Cylons! He is of the "intellectual ownership old codger" school of AGW Cylons! Ho-Hum, Not Another AGW Nihilists op-ed (NAAGWNOE), Zzzzzzz.......

But we know there are actually 35 AGW Cylons, who are the mysterious missing 5? Why of course, we kind of know who they are, they frequent these threads, but we cannot see who they are because of their equally mysterious screen names!

Stay tuned for the 4th season of AGW Cylons Attack Earth, where the missing 5 are revealed!

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

Why, yes #6 of the 30 known AGW Zylons! He is of the "intellectual ownership old codger" school of AGW Zylons!

But we know there are actually 35 AGW Zylons, who are the mysterious missing 5? Why of course, we kind of know who they are, they frequent these threads, but we cannot see who they are because of their equally mysterious screen names!

Stay tuned for the 4th season of AGW Zylons Attack Earth, where the missing 5 are revealed!

" This has happened before and will happen again. "

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Because I am fairly certain that most supporters of a global warming catastrophe will not read a provided link from a skeptic, I'll offer the following as a paraphrase and literal transcription of the points made recently at Climateaudit:

2. The SST temperature record (sea surface) has been altered by unwarranted "adjustments" and mistakes.

3. The following position is acceptable: We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?

4. The prevailing attitude that data collected by a scientist with public funding is his personal property and should be hidden from review... as should computer codes developed using public funding.

6. It is prudent to rely on statistical studies carried out by non-statisticians without ever subjecting these studies to a statistical or other audit.

7. If a methodology used in a study in found to be faulty, it is acceptable to keep using the results. [Manns PC1 is used in the following studies illustrated by IPCC: MBH99, Mann and Jones 2003, Rutherford et al 2005, and remarkably, Osborn and Briffa 2006, Hegerl et al 2006].

8. Calculating a verification r2 statistic for a reconstruction is an incorrect and foolish thing to do. It is acceptable practice to report favorable verification statistics and not report failed statistics.

9. It is acceptable to cherry pick data and use discredited bristlecone and foxtail ring widths are a valid temperature proxies, to eliminate data sets that contradict one's intended resuls (Polar Urals), etc. Truncation of the proxy records after 1960, etc.

Anyone that looks into the work of McIntyre, McKittrich, and others will find - at the very least - a disturbing and dubious science. One does not have to be an expert to note the obvious, the refusal to follow good practice by so-called scientists.

Because I am fairly certain that most supporters of a global warming catastrophe will not read a provided link from a skeptic, I'll offer the following as a paraphrase and literal transcription of the points made recently at Climateaudit:

2. The SST temperature record (sea surface) has been altered by unwarranted "adjustments" and mistakes.

3. The following position is acceptable: “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?

4. The prevailing attitude that data collected by a scientist with public funding is his personal property and should be hidden from review... as should computer codes developed using public funding.

6. It is prudent to rely on statistical studies carried out by non-statisticians without ever subjecting these studies to a statistical or other audit.

7. If a methodology used in a study in found to be faulty, it is acceptable to keep using the results. [Mann’s PC1 is used in the following studies illustrated by IPCC: MBH99, Mann and Jones 2003, Rutherford et al 2005, and remarkably, Osborn and Briffa 2006, Hegerl et al 2006].

8. Calculating a verification r2 statistic for a reconstruction is an incorrect and foolish thing to do. It is acceptable practice to report favorable verification statistics and not report failed statistics.

9. It is acceptable to cherry pick data and use discredited bristlecone and foxtail ring widths are a valid temperature proxies, to eliminate data sets that contradict one's intended resuls (Polar Urals), etc. Truncation of the proxy records after 1960, etc.

Anyone that looks into the work of McIntyre, McKittrich, and others will find - at the very least - a disturbing and dubious science. One does not have to be an expert to note the obvious, the refusal to follow good practice by so-called scientists.

You know MP, too much of any one thing is bad for you, or so I've been told. I mean I like M&M's too, but consume too much of them, as your only "food for thought" and you get fat, lazy, and eventually get overly HYSTERICAL!

We've already "been there, done that" (as in all points made above have been addressed by the climate scientists, irregardless of what you may think, say, or do) please come up with some new material!

UPDATE, I actually went to M&M's site;

No, not that one silly rabbit, the one you linked to.

Hmm, 19 questions/statements, each of which would fall into the loaded_question or fallacy of many questions, you know like "Are you still beating your wife?" type of question/statement.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

Because I am fairly certain that most supporters of a global warming catastrophe will not read a provided link from a skeptic, I'll offer the following as a paraphrase and literal transcription of the points made recently at Climateaudit:

Max, could you provide links which specifically address each of these points?

I found something on UHI, here. The blogger writes that he attempted to get the datasets from the author, and did not succeed. He then goes to list reports which use this data. I'd like to see what specifically he's found that indicates UHI should be a considerable influence.

I can't seem to phrase my search well to find anything on #2.

#4 is a repeat of #3. Basically, "I don't have the data." Haven't found specifics here, except on the UHI above (where the author claims to have misplaced the diskette; not that he's attempting to hide it from critics, nor that its his personal property, to be protected privately).

There is no #5.

#6 link, please

#7: Mann's PC1. I found a category for that. The 2nd blog entry on that page mentions several studies that use, or seem to use, Mann's PC1 calculation. I don't see anything disputing the veracity of the numbers though (presumably in another blog entry).

1. Care to explain the variations in temperature by as much as 10 degrees and lasting for hundreds of thousands if not millions of years? I don't recall any automobiles or carbon spewing factories being around in the Jurassic Period, do you?

2. The planet has actually not gotten warmer since 1998.

3. C02 levels have been much higher in the past then they are now, even in times prior to the industrial revolution.

Global warming is not man made. There is little to no evidence that it's man made. It's amazing though that the very same people who question everything put out by a governmental agency embrace IPCC as the Word of God Almighty.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

1. Care to explain the variations in temperature by as much as 10 degrees and lasting for hundreds of thousands if not millions of years? I don't recall any automobiles or carbon spewing factories being around in the Jurassic Period, do you?

2. The planet has actually not gotten warmer since 1998.

3. C02 levels have been much higher in the past then they are now, even in times prior to the industrial revolution.

Global warming is not man made. There is little to no evidence that it's man made. It's amazing though that the very same people who question everything put out by a governmental agency embrace IPCC as the Word of God Almighty.

Well I do know that during the Cretacious and Jurassic there was a lot of volcanic activity spewing out greenhouse gases. Also other natural factors that aren't present today can account for this. So there was a rise in the global temp.

" Pre-human global warming
Further information: Paleoclimatology and temperature record

Curves of reconstructed temperature at two locations in Antarctica and a global record of variations in glacial ice volume. Today's date is on the left side of the graph
Changes in climate during the Phanerozoic (the last 542 million years). The recent period is located on the left-hand side of the plot.The earth has experienced natural global warming and cooling many times in the past. The recent Antarctic EPICA ice core spans 800,000 years, including eight glacial cycles with interglacial warming periods much hotter than current temperatures. The chart also shows the time of the last glacial maximum about 20,000 years ago.

It is thought by some geologists[attribution needed] that a rapid buildup of greenhouse gases caused the Earth to experience global warming in the early Jurassic period, with average temperatures rising by 5 °C (9.0 °F). Research by the Open University indicates that this caused the rate of rock weathering to increase by 400%. As such weathering locks away carbon in calcite and dolomite, CO2 levels dropped back to normal over roughly the next 150,000 years.[55][56]

Sudden releases of methane from clathrate compounds (the clathrate gun hypothesis) have been hypothesized as a cause for other past global warming events, including the Permian-Triassic extinction event and the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. However, warming at the end of the last glacial period is thought not to be due to methane release.[57] Instead, natural variations in the Earth's orbit (Milankovitch cycles) are believed to have triggered the retreat of ice sheets by changing the amount of solar radiation received at high latitude and led to deglaciation.

Using paleoclimate data for the last 500 million years, Veizer et al. (2000, Nature 408, pp. 698–701) concluded that long-term temperature variations are only weakly related to CO2 variations. Most paleoclimatologists believe this is because other factors, such as continental drift and mountain building have larger effects in determining very long-term climate. Shaviv and Veizer (2003) proposed that the largest long-term influence on temperature are variations in the flux of cosmic rays received by the Earth as the Solar System moves around the galaxy.[58] They argued that over geologic time-scales a change in CO2 concentrations comparable to doubling pre-industrial levels results in about 0.75 °C (1.35 °F) warming, less than the 1.5–4.5 °C (2.7–8.1 °F) reported by climate models.[59] Shaviv and Veizer (2004) acknowledge that this conclusion may only be valid on multi-million year time scales when glacial and geological feedback have had a chance to establish themselves. Rahmstorf et al. argue that Shaviv and Veizer arbitrarily tuned their data, and that their conclusions are unreliable.[60] "

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

1. Care to explain the variations in temperature by as much as 10 degrees and lasting for hundreds of thousands if not millions of years? I don't recall any automobiles or carbon spewing factories being around in the Jurassic Period, do you?

2. The planet has actually not gotten warmer since 1998.

3. C02 levels have been much higher in the past then they are now, even in times prior to the industrial revolution.

Global warming is not man made. There is little to no evidence that it's man made. It's amazing though that the very same people who question everything put out by a governmental agency embrace IPCC as the Word of God Almighty.

SDW, wishing upon a star doesn't help the situation, and every one of your points is well known by the climatologists. Heck even I have looked into the 5 points you mentioned, and not to sound like a broken record, but it is the current/future rate of change in the Earth's climate that is important, not what past climates were like, we weren't there then, didn't have a 6.5B population (expected to be 9B+ by 2050), with greatly expanding 3rd world energy/resource needs, etceteras.

Like I previously stated, I'm not trying to turn you Cylons into humans, I trying to keep humans from turning into Cylons!

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

The calculus for a totally pollution free world is so costly as to ensure human misery and death from a simple lack of other resourcess. The richer industrializing countries, even with some pollution, provides a better life than a desperately poor one, no matter how pure the air.

No one has suggested a totally pollution free world. This is a reductio ad absurdum argument and valueless.

Quote:

The answer to pollution is cost/benefit ... which is not a slogan but an objective calculation.

Heh, sure it is...its a slogan in as much as benefits are not all reducible to a dollar value nor are all costs associated with a course of action calculable.

Quote:

Again, you have some kind of social engineering - Soviet style mentality.

This is obviously ad hominem and pointless.

However, I would think that folks that believe in the primacy of cost/benefit ratios to be far more of the Soviet style mentality when it comes to deciding national policy...the Soviets weren't too keen on most things the liberal left wants...but boy did they have a bunch of economists doing centralized national planning based on cost benefit analysis for the State.

Quote:

As every economist knows the use of resources is based on supply and demand, and resultant market price. The usefulness of lowering the use of resources for a given unit of production depends on land (resources), capital, and labor. Cheap and plentiful resources may play small role in the cost of production (i.e. capital and labor may play a much greater role). It may/may not make sense to invest a lot of money to reducing the cost of resources, and it may make more sense to improve rates of productivity or higher more skilled workers, etc. It just depends on the product.

We're talking about burning oil to move around, heat homes, etc. Unless you're of the mind to engage in some Soviet style social engineering of your own to make folks live closer to where they work (and in warmer, milder places) this argument is ignoratio elenchi (red herring)...

Quote:

AND supply and demand also direct investment. If price rises, investment flows towards increasing supply and/or using it more efficiently (and thus lowering the price). So let the price rise.

So in your expert opinion a massive increase in oil prices because Chinese needs increase will do wonders for our own fuel dependent economy?

So lets take an example where one company (China) has invested in a more fuel efficient fleet than another (US) in anticipation of a fuel cost increase (or because in this case they understand that their influence in the Middle East is far lower than ours and wish not to depend so much on a resource the US could deny if we so choose).

Which company will be more competitive? The one that had a more efficient fleet or the one that either needs to replace their fleet with a more efficient one in the time of higher prices or stagger along with a less efficient one?

You can claim that oil prices will not rise in the future but um, you'll not be surprised that most folks are going to be skeptical.

Quote:

Your simple view is that of a lay person.

Yes, because only economists have any understanding of the world. Another ad hominem with a whiff of ad verecundiam. Very nice.

Quote:

Even if you have never taken economics you should understand the key to lowering the unit cost of producing a Kebler cookie (for example) is not in telling the baker to use less flour and fewer chocolate chips. That is short-sighted.

Ignoratio elenchi

I didn't skip econ 101 but it seems you skipped logic 101. Either that or your position is so devoid of merit that you're stuck with rather weak arguments...

Quote:

Your statement is incomprehensible. Chinese growth would be impossible if supply were not meeting demand, that is why it is a good thing. And the supplies are meeting demand because as price nudges upward, more supplies are found.

Yes supply meeting demand is not only a good thing, it is the core of an introduction to economics. As demand inceases, price increases, then supply increases. Get a textbook.

Or perhaps as Chinese demand increases, prices increases but because we will continue to have larger energy needs and an older, less efficient equipment our economy will suffer vis a vis the Chinese one? Their costs to build a more efficient fleet as they grow is likely faster and of a greater percentage of their base than anything we could reasonably PLAN to do...much less react to.

This seems to be a common issue for incumbent companies facing younger rivals. The pros are a deep investment in a vast infrastructure. The cons are a...deep investment in a vast infrastructure. The Chinese do not lack capital for further development of their infrastructure to fuel growth.

So perhaps one doesn't want to see a modern, well trained Chinese military funded by a healthy Chinese economy while the US military is recovering from Iraq and a moribund US economy because US transportation costs have gone through the roof? Perhaps one would prefer China NOT to have the option of pushing on Taiwan and the US having to look the other way in the 2010-2015 timeframe? Whether we would choose to do so anyway is a secondary issue...I prefer that we not HAVE to.

Therein lies the path to a fading superpower. You may wish to see the US reduced to the UK in stature...I prefer that future pushed as far outwards as possible and never mind the cost/benefit ratios.

Nah. I'm just a cliche touting, Soviet thinking, left wing tree hugger that never took any economics. I am guilty of a little argumentum ad baculum there...but given they haven't taken away my conservatives card I can do that with a straight face.

Quote:

Because it may make sense NOW when oil prices push us into economic slowdowns. Let the market decide.

Now we understand why economists aren't often CEOs of companies or Presidents of countries...

Perhaps I prefer to keep strategic national resource available and let the middle east run dry first? That has a multitude of benefits that I'm afraid your complex economic calculus would ignore.

Quote:

Look Vinea, all you are doing is pushing cliques (I'm waiting for the addiction to oil mantra).

Hmmm...cliques? Perhaps I slept through Econ 101 and 102 because, well, econ < science...even wimpy computer science which isn't even a science but whatever as I can spell cliché.

Thanks for the stroll down memory lane. Its been a while since I bothered to try to remember the names of all the informal fallacies. Had to look a couple up. For your next post try for variety and add some ad populum and ad baculum arguments. Given your dislike of the left I would assume you'd leave off the ad misricodiam arguments. I saw a few ad ignorantiam arguments in some of your other posts so I think you're well covered there.

If you prefer that I didn't simply ridicule your (lack of) logic, perhaps you might actually discuss the topic rather than talk down to everyone...

There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true.

What of it? Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe.

SDW, wishing upon a star doesn't help the situation, and every one of your points is well known by the climatologists. Heck even I have looked into the 5 points you mentioned, and not to sound like a broken record, but it is the current/future rate of change in the Earth's climate that is important, not what past climates were like, we weren't there then, didn't have a 6.5B population (expected to be 9B+ by 2050), with greatly expanding 3rd world energy/resource needs, etceteras.

Like I previously stated, I'm not trying to turn you Cylons into humans, I trying to keep humans from turning into Cylons!

And what, pray tell, is that future rate of change? It's all prediction which is exactly the point of the MIT scientist I linked to. We know that we're not putting out the majority of the C02 in the atmosphere. We also know that levels of C02 have been higher than they are now, even with all our dirty, dirty cars and factories...that make miniature models...of factories. That means we really aren't contributing much (if at all) to overall C02 levels.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

There hasn't been much warming. I suppose I should clarify though...the Earth may warming, I just don't think we have anything significant to do with it. I also don't think that warming will be catostrophic if it occurs at all, or nearly as pronounced as the Gore-bots claim.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

There hasn't been much warming. I suppose I should clarify though...the Earth may warming, I just don't think we have anything significant to do with it. I also don't think that warming will be catostrophic if it occurs at all, or nearly as pronounced as the Gore-bots claim.

Head in sand.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

And what, pray tell, is that future rate of change? It's all prediction which is exactly the point of the MIT scientist I linked to. We know that we're not putting out the majority of the C02 in the atmosphere. We also know that levels of C02 have been higher than they are now, even with all our dirty, dirty cars and factories...that make miniature models...of factories. That means we really aren't contributing much (if at all) to overall C02 levels.

Are you ?

Oh yes we are, at present CO2 ~ 385 ppmv, whereas ~150 YBP it was ~280 ppmv, and currently rising at ~ 2 ppmv/yr, and at an ever increasing rate. We will easily pass the 600 ppmv by 2,100, and if we continue burning (at ever increasing rates) ~500 MY of carbon deposits in say ~500 Y (~SIX orders of magnitude faster than it was deposited), why heck, homo sapiens will set the all time CO2 record that Planet Earth has EVER seen!

And remember Earth's biosphere isn't keeping up with our CO2 emissions as shown in these two figures;

Again, not to be a broken record, but we've been over this in previous AGW threads!

UPDATE: Here are some more recent graphs from the CDIAC!

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

Oh yes we are, at present CO2 ~ 385 ppmv, whereas ~150 YBP it was ~280 ppmv, and currently rising at ~ 2 ppmv/yr, and at an ever increasing rate. We will easily pass the 600 ppmv by 2,100, and if we continue burning (at ever increasing rates) ~500 MY of carbon deposits in say ~500 Y (~SIX orders of magnitude faster than it was deposited), why heck, homo sapiens will set the all time CO2 record that Planet Earth has EVER seen!

(lots of charts)

Yes, but none of those have anything to do with what SDW said. He said that most CO2 is not put out by humans, not that CO2 hasn't increased.

Yes, but none of those have anything to do with what SDW said. He said that most CO2 is not put out by humans, not that CO2 hasn't increased.

SDW, here, is factually correct.

Yes, sorry missed the "majority" part at the start! Doh!

Quote:

That means we really aren't contributing much (if at all) to overall C02 levels.

No, to this part of his statement! So I stand by the "all time CO2 record" (We are talking about atmospheric CO2 here, aren't we?) part of my statement if we continue to burn Carbon deposits at ever increasing rates.

But really, we aren't adding any carbon to the Earth (Are we?), we are converting the existing deposits of carbon (i. e. carbon atoms in fossil fuels) through chemical reactions into gaseous CO2, and that the Earth's biosphere/oceans can not absorb this gaseous CO2 increase at an equal rate, thus the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels.

And that fact (I believe) is what most concerns climate scientists.

That is all.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

For your imformation and the imformation of other readers. the graphs you offered up, all directly copy or invoke the infamously flawed Mann hockey stick, (which despite claims of having been exonerated by various Mann and IPCC afficionados) remains thoroughly discredited.

How do I know this ?

I happen to know Professor Ross McKitrick of the Geulf University. He, along with his colleague Dr Steve Mcintyre http://www.climateaudit.org/ collectively blew the whistle on Mann's sensationalist grab at environmental fame.

Theyt shot so many holes into it, that it sank like a rusty bucket. Even the Wegman report, ended up finding all the points as laid out by McKitrick and Macintyre as being absolutely right.

A copy of his recent letter to me is laid out below. My question is in italics.

Quote:

Dear Rod.

Thank you for your letter.

One of the forums that I attend claims you were paid by Exxon to alter
your research into the Mann Hockey stick.

This is absolutely untrue. I have never been paid by Exxon, hired by
Exxon, employed by Exxon, under contract to Exxon, etc. My appointment
to the Fraser Institute as a Senior Fellow was in 2002. It is an unpaid
position, and I am hardly ever at the Institute, which is in Vancouver
(I live near Guelph). The Fraser Institute is, I believe, Canada's
largest economics think tank, and has 3 Nobel Laureates on its advisory
board. My role is to provide occasional advice on research, program
development etc.

The idea that we 'altered' our research is bizarre. Our work is
published in journals, and all the data and code are available on-line.
Many people have examined our work and reproduced our arguments,
including the National Academy of Science panel, which on page 91 of
their report presents their own numerical example of the biasing effect
of Mann's algorithm, such that random numbers generate a hockey stick.

Steve McIntyre and I never sought money for our hockey stick research.
Steve paid thousands of dollars from his own pocket to fund the work.
In the papers we published we stated that no funding was sought or
received for the research.

People desperately want to believe that the hockey stick was the victim
of a savage, unfair attack by evil corporate forces. Inevitably, the
people who say this haven't the most elementary clue about the
technical issues involved. When Steve and I traveled to Washington one
year ago to present our research to the panel of the National Academy
of Sciences investigating the the issue, all this garbage about Exxon
funding, distorted findings etc. just didn't get in the front door.
They invited a series of expert witnesses, most of whom were
sympathetic to Mann's position, and the panel was stacked with people
who had previously been supportive of his position. We had one speaking
slot at the end of the day to present our findings. In the end the
final report accepted all our claims and agreed that Mann's results
were based on a biased methodology; lacked statistical significance;
depended on the use of contaminated bristlecone data; etc. Like I say,
their own panel statistician was easily able to reproduce a numerical
example of the mathematical flaw in Mann's method.

Likewise the Wegman panel, which focused intently on the statistical
and mathematical details, completely upheld our findings, not only in
their initial report but in several subsequent submissions to Congress
in response to the ensuing hearings and criticisms from Democratic
congressmen.

My web page http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html makes
this material available should the people with whom you interact decide
they are ready to move beyond the internet rumour mill and read the
evidence. And of course they are free to email me if they want to ask
for themselves. I don't bite, but like anyone else I prefer polite
emails to abuse, so I expect ordinary civility.

You are referring to PC reconstructions (BTW the M&M schtick has been fully refuted by the PC community at large, ad infinitum!).

I am talking about atmospheric CO2 buildup, the CO2 data are real, the cause is known (humans) AND real! There are NO proxies in the CO2 data, they are either direct real time measurements, or direct measurements of CO2 from ice cores! I don't think any bona fide peer reviewed climate researcher questions these facts!

You make my misread of SDW's post look insignificant by comparison!

As to your purported "hard science" I see verbiage but I don't see your "hard science!" I do see a blog link though, but you need to provide some peer reviewed climate science to fully support your position (and yes I've seen the M&M schtick publications)!

Now be gone with you, AGW Cylon Centurion!

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

I am talking about atmospheric CO2 buildup, the CO2 data are real, the cause is known (humans) AND real! There are NO proxies in the CO2 data, they are either direct real time measurements, or direct measurements of CO2 from ice cores! I don't think any bona fide peer reviewed climate researcher questions these facts!

I trust you do know about the trouble with Ice cores. These are related directly to issues of pressure released Co2 distortion as well as cracked samplings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by franksargent

As to your purported "hard science" I see verbiage but I don't see your "hard science!'

Ditto, plenty of biased sources to support your claims. And as for me, `i haven't posted them yet. I have barely started. But I promise you, you won't go away empty handed.

At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.

CO2 is intrinsically linked to heat, but happens ~800 years later.

If CO2 is rising, these ice cores tell us that there should have been a period of unusually high temperatures some 800 years ago... like right around, say, the Medieval warm period!

We know that current CO2 is caused almost entirely by this period. Ice cores and numerous scientists support this. RealClimate.org also says this. We also know that humans just don't pump out enough CO2 to increase levels this high. Not even close.

In order to say that humans are primarily responsible for the current CO2 buildup, you must FIRST disprove ice cores, which are consistent over spans of hundreds of thousands of years and across several, independent studies, and then you must THEN explain why somehow annual CO2 accrual exceeds, by an order of magnitude, the amount of CO2 we actually put out.

That's a tough task.

* Note: RealClimate very correctly points out that CO2 being caused by earlier temperature increases doesn't also mean that CO2 doesn't cause temperature increases itself. I'm just going to point out that this is irrelevent before you jump on it

Max, could you provide links which specifically address each of these points?

I found something on UHI, here. The blogger writes that he attempted to get the datasets from the author, and did not succeed. He then goes to list reports which use this data. I'd like to see what specifically he's found that indicates UHI should be a considerable influence.

I can't seem to phrase my search well to find anything on #2.

#4 is a repeat of #3. Basically, "I don't have the data." Haven't found specifics here, except on the UHI above (where the author claims to have misplaced the diskette; not that he's attempting to hide it from critics, nor that its his personal property, to be protected privately).

There is no #5.

#6 link, please

#7: Mann's PC1. I found a category for that. The 2nd blog entry on that page mentions several studies that use, or seem to use, Mann's PC1 calculation. I don't see anything disputing the veracity of the numbers though (presumably in another blog entry).

#8 & #9 links?

Help me out here.

More than happy to help. The whole list, unedited and original, is at the following link:

If CO2 is rising, these ice cores tell us that there should have been a period of unusually high temperatures some 800 years ago... like right around, say, the Medieval warm period!

We know that current CO2 is caused almost entirely by this period. Ice cores and numerous scientists support this. RealClimate.org also says this. We also know that humans just don't pump out enough CO2 to increase levels this high. Not even close.

In order to say that humans are primarily responsible for the current CO2 buildup, you must FIRST disprove ice cores, which are consistent over spans of hundreds of thousands of years and across several, independent studies, and then you must THEN explain why somehow annual CO2 accrual exceeds, by an order of magnitude, the amount of CO2 we actually put out.

That's a tough task.

* Note: RealClimate very correctly points out that CO2 being caused by earlier temperature increases doesn't also mean that CO2 doesn't cause temperature increases itself. I'm just going to point out that this is irrelevent before you jump on it

I don't dispute your first statement. The flux of human CO2 versus the natural flux is indeed a few percent.

Where I think we differ, is in the causes of past CO2 changes versus the current CO2 changes. Maybe I'm mistaken, and I need to read up on it some more!

Anyway, WRT past histories of CO2, my understanding is the Earth's orbital motions are one natural source of temperature changes, that these temperature changes lead to CO2 changes (lags), but that at some point CO2 feedback causes further temperature changes.

In terms of the recent changes in atmospheric CO2, everything I have read suggests that these are anthropogenic in origin, and not due to changes in Earth's orbital motions or other natural causes. So that now the CO2 increases occurring will act as a feedback mechanism that causes the temperature to increase in a lagged fashion.

So what was a driver in the past, is not the same as the current driver.

For your information and the information of other readers. the graphs you offered up, all directly copy or invoke the infamously flawed Mann hockey stick, (which despite claims of having been exonerated by various Mann and IPCC aficionados) remains thoroughly discredited.

How do I know this ?

I happen to know Professor Ross McKitrick of the Geulf University. He, along with his colleague Dr Steve Mcintyre http://www.climateaudit.org/ collectively blew the whistle on Mann's sensationalist grab at environmental fame.

Theyt shot so many holes into it, that it sank like a rusty bucket. Even the Wegman report, ended up finding all the points as laid out by McKitrick and Macintyre as being absolutely right.

A copy of his recent letter to me is laid out below. My question is in italics.

Respectfully

Aquafire

Aquafire,

Thanks for the letter. You are quite right in respect to proxy studies being undone by serious methodological flaws and a failure to pass cross-verification statistics. As McKittrick pointed out both the NAS and Wegman also exposed the fatal flaws of Mann - although the NAS excused Mann's effort's as "a first attempt" and the NAS assured the public and Congress that the hockey stick was, in some form, confirmed by other studies.

Oddly, what the NAS did not bother to investigate was if the other studies also used similar methods and data, and if they passed cross-verification statistics (BTW the other studies are similar to Mann's study in methods, they use the same suspect data sets, and also fail cross-validation).

Naturally, M&M have pointed out it does not do much good for the NAS to show Mann's flaws and then to quote other studies haveing the same flaws. To NAS credit, they did admit that they have not examined the other studies for integrity, so they can't confirm or deny their accuracy.

Finally, it is important to note the Global Climate Modeling of the future is not the same as proxy modeling of the past. Although a few proxy researchers do dabble in both areas, as a matter of logic the temperature of the past is not an issue addressed by GCM's, which try to model current climate and use assumptons about Greenhouse gases to predict the future temperature and climate.

Still, after seeing all the con-artists in proxy modeling, one has to wonder about the veracity of their GCM cousins who are also secretative.

ClimateAudit is the best single source for the informed skeptic with a technical background - many of the commentators are talented researchers and stat fluent. The links buried in articles allow one to reconstruct the entire debate with original documents (which I have).

Finally, it is important to note the Global Climate Modeling of the future is not the same as proxy modeling of the past. Although a few proxy researchers do dabble in both areas, as a matter of logic the temperature of the past is not an issue addressed by GCM's, which try to model current climate and use assumptons about Greenhouse gases to predict the future temperature and climate.

You are incorrect on your assumptions WRT GCM's.

All numerical models are vetted through a two step process called calibration and verification, this is SOP for numerical modelers.

Calibration is done using objective data (physical measurements) of Earth's processes (for example use data from the time period 1966 thru 1985). The empirical coefficients are then adjusted to get the best agreement with this data set.

Verification of the model is then done by simulating more recent events (the drivers) using subsequent physical measurements (say 1986 thru 2005) and looking at the responses.

These GCM models have been rather successful when compared to the recent historic physical measurements of record.

Of course, the GCM's are in continued development as we come to ever better understanding of the underlying physical processes.

That is all.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

If CO2 is rising, these ice cores tell us that there should have been a period of unusually high temperatures some 800 years ago... like right around, say, the Medieval warm period!

We know that current CO2 is caused almost entirely by this period. Ice cores and numerous scientists support this. RealClimate.org also says this. We also know that humans just don't pump out enough CO2 to increase levels this high. Not even close.

In order to say that humans are primarily responsible for the current CO2 buildup, you must FIRST disprove ice cores, which are consistent over spans of hundreds of thousands of years and across several, independent studies, and then you must THEN explain why somehow annual CO2 accrual exceeds, by an order of magnitude, the amount of CO2 we actually put out.

That's a tough task.

* Note: RealClimate very correctly points out that CO2 being caused by earlier temperature increases doesn't also mean that CO2 doesn't cause temperature increases itself. I'm just going to point out that this is irrelevant before you jump on it

CO2 is a stand-in for a variety of greenhouse gases, some of which are (by volume) are up to 20 times stronger in trapping solar radiation (e.g. methane, much of which seems to come from cows and nature).

Of course the use of graphs to show dramatic increases in CO2 conveys one impression. However, note two particular points:

First, we are speaking of parts per million - that is the hair-pulling is over an increase of CO2 from .028% to .038%. The increase of 1/100th % suggests a balance so delicate that the tiniest change in volcanic activity over a short period alone would cause dramatic swings in global temperature. And given that humans only contribute between 3 and 6% of yearly CO2 this seems (on its face) dubious to ascribe it to humans.

Second, GCM's are as much an art as a science. Of the 12 or so major input factors only half are pretty well understood, and big factors such as volcanic output are mere guesses. So what it amounts to is filling in guesses for independent variables until you get the prediction you are seeking, autocorrelated against past data that has, BTW, been adjusted.

I am with Lindzen on this - yes the earth probably is warming, and more likely than not humans have made a significant but unknown contribution to this. The degree of contribution is not really known, nor is the future course of warming or its effect. I suspect real warming will be less than one-half of current conservative estimates...i.e. maybe 1/2 ti to two degrees over 100 years - not much and nothing to worry about.